thought we should go to some polling data. be prepared -- i am going to show you a bunch of numbers -- that i have conducted. i had an opportunity to ask americans in general, but also tea pertiers about how they perceive the fairness of the american system, about opportunities in america. you see they are distinct from most other people who do not self-identify with the tea party. we see 71% of tea party supporters think that all americans have an equal opportunity to succeed, compared to a majority, but still significantly less -- 55% -- of non-tea-party supporters. we also talked about income inequality as part of the system -- is this an acceptable part of the system or a problem that we need to address? 68% of tea pertiers said it is an acceptable part of the system

compared to a little less than half of everyone else -- 60% of tea partiers. we asked if it is the responsibility of government to reduce these income differences are not. we see a very huge difference -- 80% of tea pertiers do not believe it is the -- partiers do not believe it is the role of government to redistribute wealth. if it is their view that this is a land of equal opportunity regardless of background, and the reasons why they might not also think it is the responsibility of the government to redistribute wealth. this is where we see probably the most striking difference. we asked about those in this country who are poor -- how good of a chance to they have for escaping poverty? this is a striking difference. 57% of tea partiers think these individuals have a very good

chance of escaping poverty compared to only 33% of non-tea- party supporters. 67% think the poor have very little chance of escaping poverty. this is so striking that i wanted to delve a little deeper into the data and look at different groups. we have republicans that are not tea partiers, tea party republicans and libertarians. almost everyone -- republicans, libertarians, democrats, and others -- do not think the poor have a very good chance of escaping from poverty, but tea partiers think they do. one of the reasons they may feel this way is we asked essentially about the question of zero some -- su m. -- sum. ken was growing up for everyone or does the wealth of one person mean there is less for everyone lse -- can wealth grow

enough for everyone? the majority thinks that when one person gets wealthy, that necessarily means that someone else has gotten poorer. most americans agree that hard work is ultimately the most important trade in order to achieve success rather than look for help from other people, but still, you see a difference between tea partiers. i have added in here to party activists. this is an engines poll that david and i conducted back in october 2010 -- this is an entrance poll. this is margin of error we are talking about. essentially everybody there thought hard work is what is most important for determining success. however, for non-tea-party supporters, although still the number is overwhelming, there is still a sizable percentage that also think that love and help

from other people is ultimately what matters most. -- that a lot -- that luck and help from other people is ultimately what matters most. this shows that tea party members have very unique views about upward economic mobility in our country. when i did my interviews with these individuals, a common theme kept coming up -- all of the same words were being used. i am not sure if someone was using it on a talk show -- i am not sure what to explain this, but people would say, "what i'm worried about most is losing a thing that makes america great." i would ask what that is, and they would say, "america is the place where you can be whatever it is you want to be." they often would caveat this and point out that that is no guarantee of success. a lot of them have started businesses that have failed. but they also said that what it does mean is it is a guarantee of opportunity to try -- to try

to succeed, to try and perhaps fail, and that this ideology i had not really encountered with any of the other groups that i had studied in my own professional research. i just say that this helps explain a lot of their other positions, especially their strong economic conservatism and their fiscal conservatism. if you have a view that things are generally fair, that we work in a meritocracy, that hard work pays off, that income redistribution may seem less necessary or even justified. the second point i would like to make today is about medicare. i hear this constantly with my research of the tea party movement. people would often bring up signs that look something like this. this was first documented at one of the tea party rallies, where a woman had a sign that said "get your government hands off my medicare."

this has led to an emerging peace is within the academic world that suggests that the tea party is in fact a lover of the government -- this has led to an emerging thesis. but only big government programs that benefit them and that in a sense it is selfishness. instead of wanting the government programs for all, it is just big government programs for them personally, but this did not seem to comport with what i was observing in my interviews with the tea party and also just looking at the polling data itself. we decided to delve a little bit deeper into this issue, to understand how tea partiers perceive and how they conceive of entitlement programs in the united states. we talked about responsibility -- who is primarily responsible for saving for retirement? 72% of tea partiers thought that

individuals should be primarily responsible for saving for retirement, compared to 56% -- still a majority, but 56% -- of non-tea-party supporters. we also talked about medicare. still less, but still a majority thought individuals should be responsible for paying for health insurance when they are retired. we asked them about opting out of entitlement programs like social security and medicare, and overwhelmingly -- almost 3/4 -- of tea partiers think this is fine. less than half of everyone else agrees. the same is true of medicare. this led me to wonder -- what explains the polling data out there that shows that tea partiers are unwilling to cut social security and medicare in order to balance the budget? everybody knows that the main drivers of our future budget

deficits will be the result of our entitlement programs unless we change them. so why would it not be the movement that says they are against big government spending -- why would they oppose reducing government spending for social security and medicare? so we decided to ask the question like everybody else asks -- would you be willing to have your current or future social security benefits reduced as part of a plan to balance the federal budget and/or ensure social security benefits remain in place for future retirees? a majority of tea partiers say no. compared to 52% of non-tea-party supporters. one thing that struck me was that tea partiers would talk about medicare and social security as if it were a savings account. they say this money. if a sacrifice money today, the delay consumption that they could not spend today, but instead saved this in a government program -- in a

government savings account, if you will -- for when they are retired. we asked what they would be willing to accept -- we asked if they would be willing to accept reductions in the benefits if they were guaranteed to receive at least the amount of money they contributed into the system. you see the responses flipped. most americans and tea partiers -- even slightly more so -- 65% say yes, they would be willing to accept reductions to their own social secure the benefits if they were guaranteed to at least get their money back. we asked the same thing about medicare. if you were to promise they would still get the money that they put in, you see 67% would be open to reforming medicare, even if that meant cuts, as long as they get their money back. we asked this in august 2011 poll. we decided to revisit this last month in our september poll, and we just went straight for it.

we asked if they would be willing to accept cuts in current or future medicare benefits if they were guaranteed to receive benefits at least equal to the amount of money that they and their employers contributed into the system, and we find 3/4 our tea partiers say yes -- of tea partiers say yes. often, what we were finding in the early polling data where tea partiers were reluctant to cut medicare spending, they were thinking they were reluctant to have their own savings take away, rather than and thinking of it as a redistributive program in which they wanted to ensure they also received those redistributive payments. ok, in sum, although these two points are somewhat disjointed, i think these are very important points to make and that polling data can help clarify where the tea party stands and how it is different from those who do not identify with the tea party. mainly that the tea party is

very concerned with the board economic mobility, and it continues to be so, which probably explains their strong commitment to fiscal conservatism, and also that they are open to entitlement reform, although we may have previously not thought so. so thank you very much. i think that we will send the time over to questions. [applause] >> indeed we will. the question and answer session begins now, but let me go over some ground rules -- when i call on you, please wait until the microphone arrives, and begin to clearly -- speak into it clearly. we need the microphone for our sound system and also for those watching at home on c-span and online. i would like to remind at-home viewers that you can submit questions the atwitter -- vis

yeiyyrt. -- via twitter. >> he always tries to upstage me. my question is probably to four -- to all four, but it was triggered by the remark that appeared to be defining libertarians as fiscally conservative and economically -- fiscally -- >> liberal. >> right. you know what i'm trying to say. i find that this undermines what libertarians are appearing to me, libertarians are essentially saying, "we do not want

government coercion. you can have whatever kind of personal beliefs you want. you can be someone who likes to live on a commune, but if you will not force other people to live on a commune, that is libertarian." my point is we are really putting everybody on the same continuum by describing it this way. in other words, libertarians are on the same continue of as conservatives and liberals, which is probably a reason why they are not identified as a distinctive group by a lot of people. what do you think about this criticism? >> i definitely agree with you that libertarians are worried about coercion, but i think the socially liberal part might be hanging you up. the questions that we use to define libertarians as socially liberal are questions like, "do you believe the government should promote traditional values or no particular set of

values?" libertarians, by our definition, picked no particular set of values. i actually think that is consistent with what you are describing. socially liberal might be misconstrued as in favor of social programs, but i am talking about more of a tolerance position, that they do not want government messing around with their social space. those things of economic conservatism and government "stay out of my personal life" defined libertarians in our data. >> the gentleman next to him. we do not want to start any arguments here. when you say "fiscally responsible, i am bothered because i think there's a difference between the kind of fiscal response ability keep both spending and taxes low and

the kind of fiscal responsibility that occurs when you do spend a lot of money but you raise taxes -- when you say "fiscally responsible," i am bothered because i think there's a difference between the kind of fiscal responsibility when you keep taxes and spending low and the kind of fiscal responsibility that occurs when you do spend a lot of money but you raise taxes. to the extent that i am and libertarian, i am very bothered by the idea that it is really responsible to raise spending and then steal money from people in order to pay for it -- to the extent that i am a libertarian. >> that is a question for whoever wants to answer it. >> the real measure of taxation was famously described as the measure -- the level of spending. i think a lot of tea partiers would agree with your characterization that it is not right to spend today and pass on

the taxes. either you do not get the spending and keep the taxes low or not, and it might be consistent with the moral intuitions about economic mobility that you are seeing. >> we also see in the data that tea partiers even more than other groups are especially sensitive to the other -- to the issue of government spending because they see it as taxation. others do not think that deficit spending signals to people that there will be future spending down the line, but tea partiers do see this and are primarily found in part of the income distribution that research shows they are very sensitive to tax increases because they feel it differently. it is harder for them to pay extra taxes than it is for mr. buffett, but they are actually paying more -- they are getting less than they are paying in in terms of redistribution. that is exactly where tea partiers fall, generally speaking, which is one reason why they are so averse to

government spending. >> it was the former chairman of the cato institute -- alas, he died recently -- who did research as other people have done and found -- others here would certainly dispute this, but i think the evidence conclusively shows that people who want to cut taxes all the time our big government's best friend because they are discounting the apparent price of government, and when you put something on sale, people demand more of it. the best way to restrain the size of government is to force a balanced budget, which is to make people pay for it and raise taxes when necessary as a way to restrain spending. the record shows this is what works better in the u.s. however, having put that very contentious idea on the table for all of you to tear to shreds, the reason i bring it up is because i could not find polling data on this, but when i went out and talked to a two- party people, i would ask them point-blank -- what if you could get very large reductions in

spending and the price of that was some modest increase in taxes? would you take that? you would get smaller deficits and smaller government as a result, and they all said no. they were more allergic to raising taxes than they were to having the government grow, which i thought was surprising. you saw that same dynamic, by the way, in the republican primary debate. >> i think that is a great point. i have not seen polling data, but in my interviews, this also came up. what was shown was that actually would favor some sort of compromise if it were guaranteed that the spending decreases would actually go into effect, and that is typically the reluctance to any kind of tax increase at all -- that typically the reluctance to any kind of tax increase at all was that experience shows them that when tax increases go into effect, strange accounting tricks happen and they do not actually seemed to materialize,

the spending increases. interesting thing, if you were able to pose the question where it was credible -- that you credibly, actually cut spending -- whether or not tea partiers would then favor tax increases, i think it would be somewhat mixed. >> the gentleman on the third row from the front here. right here. wait for the microphone, please. >> hi, i think this is a question to all of you. i had a question because i know a lot of friends -- i will not speak to my own beliefs, but i have a lot of friends who really jump on the ron paul revolution bandwagon, jump on largely because -- jumped on largely because of the civil liberties and anti-war rhetoric than the

taxation issues because at our age, we aringe taxed either way. i wonder if that has a largein a libertarian is and what that goes into -- a large input in your definition of what a libertarian is. >> to answer your question, we have not used issue questions like the patriot acts to define libertarians -- like the patriot act to defy libertarians. the sort of moral background questions are probably more influential in the way people think and knowledge of the issues. a lot of people do not know much about the issues, so it can be confusing if you use those issues. if you use background-the questions, you will find libertarian's do care more about civil liberties than

conservatives -- i use background-believe -- if you use background-belief questions. it was surprising how many tea partiers were much more willing to accept the closing of guantanamo bay than conservatives. it is sort of surprising. >> the gentleman right here, the one inside, second from the left. we will get to the other person. >> probably mostly for emily, but i would be happy to hear anyones observations. when i did it with my friends about regulation, they often talk using a mental model that "if this time we elect the right people and i of this time the regulators do it right, we will come up with something good -- if this time the regulators to it right."

it seems they are using an aspirational model to frame their thinking. i wondered if you got answers like that in a lot of your questions. do you think that they think literally that people can escape poverty and that statistically, someone is likely to move up in united states, or are they being aspirational when they answer those questions? what is the kind of thinking that you are seeing? >> i am really glad you asked this question because it gives me an opportunity to clarify. when we talk about opportunity, who does not like the word " opportunity" and what politician does not want and advocate for opportunity? how opportunities operation allies is different for different people -- how opportunity is operationalized. if we think about everyone starting on the same platform, somewhat equalized access to health care and education, meeting we start in roughly the same place so that we have an

equal chance, equal opportunity to succeed. it is not about equal results, just about starting equally, but tea partiers are not talking about that platform. if you were to imagine a ladder, they are thinking about the ladder of upward economic mobility. it is not about where you start, it is about what that latter is like for every person -- what that ladder is like. they want it to be equal for all people. it means equality before the law, people are treated equally, and typically, equalizing the platform where you begin, and keeping that equal latter for everyone, they do not tend to go well together -- keeping that equal ladder for everyone. tea partiers would carry a lot about how that ladder works for people. most of them would not think that someone in poverty could necessarily -- you know, that they would all necessarily

become extraordinarily wealthy, but they would think that they would get to a point where they are not struggling perhaps and that almost the opportunity to try is what matters most. i think there is some basic expectation that although you might not be as wealthy as bill gates, there is some sort of expectation of a level of being comfortable. >> i would add that we tend to look at history in terms of a moral narrative. we tell stories that reach back into the past and explain how we got to the present, and there are clear good guys and bad guys, almost like a child's cartoon. the big business -- the bad as the big businesses, people raping and pillaging the environment -- the bad guys. we need to get the right regulators, and finally, we will get those bad guys. my sense, from what i've heard from emily and david, is that

among tea partiers, there is a very moralistic moral view, and there is good and evil, but we should talk about the role of the poor as being the bad guys -- certain groups of poor who demanded these entitlement programs. we saw that from mitt romney's 47% comments. the sense that the american dream is dying because people have demanded entitlement programs that sapped the will to work, that are basically in a sense pushing away that ladder emily was talking about. who is evil in the tea party moral -? -- moral narrative? >> it goes to your point about actions and consequences should be correlated so that if you make good decisions and you work hard, you are rewarded and if you make bad decisions and do not work as hard, you are not rewarded.

that, i think, for the tea party especially, was the bad guy. it is debatable who was to be included, but with the onset of the financial crisis, bailouts of banks, bailouts for car companies, homeowners facing foreclosures, stimulus -- assistance for home owners facing foreclosures, stimulus -- all of these undermine their moral idea of proportionality, which is essential to what i was talking about as their idea of the american dream. they think proportionality is absolutely essential for people to have the freedom to try. with tarp especially in the financial crisis, that was the enemy. >> the gentleman next to jim harper. >> i saw in your >> i wonder if anybody on the

panel has seen any indication that tea party people or republican leaners are interested in the idea if empowering states and making politicians in washington accountable to states arguably as the authors of the constitution intended as a solution to some of these problems of growing government power and seemingly uncontrollable government borrowing. >> i hear that all the time actually. the question was the interest in going back to the states, that was a major theme in some tea partiers but it was also a source of tension inside the movement because the more traditional conservatives don't want to go there. they're worried that the states will make the wrong choices and do what massachusetts did with health care. so they actually want a top-down more or less libertarian small government policy. this is an area where i found very little agreement actually. you guys may have more

granularity on that. >> one sort of side issue that speaks to this was the direct election of senators. 17th amendment, that sort of one of the surprising pieces of history where states had more control over who their senators were in the past and this was sort of -- politicians were straining from state interests, so there was certainly in 2010 a lot of interest and talk about the 1th amendment. >> let me follow on to that. during 2010 and afterwards, very often -- just this summer i heard someone say to me the essence of the tea party was the constitution and back to the constitution. do any of you have any comments on that? are they really about kind of originalist notion of the constitution and returning to it, or is that just sort of political rhetoric? >> much more about the declaration of independence.

in my view, the single most important foundation of the constitution is compromise. it's a compromise forcing document. that's what madison was all about. jefferson, the patron saint of cato, was not even in the country at the time. hamilton popped in for a visit. these guys are hostile to compromise, and in that sense, they're hostile to the most important tenet of the constitution. they do believe, when i talk to them, a very strong premise is returning government to the people, by which they mean bringing it closer to us. they see it as co-opted by alien forces, interest groups in washington. in that sense it's not different from other populist narratives. that's the sense in which i see them as closer to the spirit of jefferson's declaration. >> i would add that a basic principle of moral psychology is that morality binds and blinds. so to get any movement together, it helps to have a flag you can salute and circle around and then you need a fight song.

you need some sacred objects. you need a history with the golden days and things used to be better, so my sense of the constitution and the declaration of independence and founding fathers are playing this role in the tea party, but here is where i think the distinction between the libertarians and conservatives might be helpful. conservative moral narratives tend to be stories of decline, that there was this golden age once. liberal stories tend to be everything was terrible and fighting to break free of the evil forces. but it strikes me that worshiping the constitution is something that both libertarians and conservatives can do for different reasons. conservatives would love it in part just because looking back several centuries to a time when things were better, nobler, purer, so just the simple age of it. there is no obligation to actually read it or -- if you are sacralizing something, you need to worship the thing as it

actually is. you can worship the idealization of it. the same thing happens on the left. you worship your idealization of martin luther king. but i think the founding documents play an interesting role. do you think the constitution plays a different role for the libertarian tea partiers and conservative tea partiers? >> i completely agree with your assessment there. in my interviews, i heard two different reasons for why the constitution was so important. as you can imagine, most of them brought it up on their own, the constitution. i heard two different explanations for why the constitution was so important, and one fits with the conservative narrative. and it was almost more of a cultural thing. it is part of us, and that makes it good. but then i heard another narrative which was more kind of a -- it would explain to me kind of nuts and bolts, more mechanical. the constitution limits what the

centralized powers can do, which gives individuals more autonomy to do x, and it was more nuts and bolts rather than -- the other explanation would be more that it's good because it's the constitution, and so i clearly related better to the more nuts and bolts side of it. but when i saw those two stories emerging, i realized that they did correlate quite well with the libertarian half and the conservative half of the tea party. >> gentleman in the middle here. it's hard to decide which mic. >> freelance writer, question to the longevity. i don't see this group of people going away. what i see is if the republicans win and demint and paul are

successful in moving the republicans in a libertarian direction, i can see a lot of tea partiers peeling off and going home to the republican party. but if mitt romney wins and moves in a massachusetts direction where he is compromising and doing the big government conservatism to govern, i see it taking off and especially if the democrats win and continue a trillion-dollar deficit that the tea party will just grow. so i am not sure in any circumstance, i really see a five-year life span on it. >> i distinguish between the durability of the sentiment and the individuals and the durability of the movement as an independent movement, and that is to say i think that depends to some extent on what republicans do. it will be interesting to see if mitt romney is elected if he governs as the mitt romney of the primaries. this group will be fairly pleased, and they're very hard to please. their standards are very high.

if he governs as the mitt romney of the debate, boy, we are talking george w. bush territory or worse. if the first thing he does is make a compromise with the democrats, boy, watch out. when i talk to them about this, at least the people in relative leadership roles, david kirby should talk about this, too, but they were very well aware that the republican party wants to co-opt them and their view is we got suckered before by being co-opted by a party. that leads to bigger government. we are going to stay outside and we are going to keep a close eye on them so we are always prepared to whack them. that's what they said and that's very hard to do. >> that's absolutely right. tea partiers have been no fan of mitt romney, and many tea partiers look at the senate as an insurance policy. a lot of state senate battles where ron paul-like candidates

are running and if they can win a tea party caucus in the senate, certainly free to work strategy and they can only put bills on romney's desk that would force his hand. he wouldn't veto them, but he probably wouldn't drive it as far as those folks so the budget would look more like what lee would propose. so i think the tea partiers are not going to fall for the same trick twice and are going to keep a very close eyen a romney administration if it turns out that way. >> to the extent that any kind of social movement can create institutions that are durable, the longer they last. i think this is one problem with occupy wall street is we didn't see the same type of really local level where they tried to take over local level offices. the tea party -- i did not see the same kind of activity. the tea party went at local levels. a lot of times you didn't see

it. the fact that ted cruise out of texas won the republican nomination is because of their local tea party group that mobilized at the very local level, the microlevel, below the radar. even polls in texas showed his opponent was leading in the polls, but then came election day and ted cruz swept and one reason was because of those institutions that had been created that were durable. however if those institutions have not been set up in other places, i don't know exactly where they have and haven't, but where they haven't i would suspect to see a waning tea party activity. but even if people aren't organizing, that doesn't mean that the sentiment isn't there. this question about are you a supporter of the tea party movement is almost similar to are you a supporter of the occupy wall street movement? it's a way for people to identify a unique set of views that we don't get by just saying

are you a republican or a democrat or a liberal or libertarian? i think that will continue to be useful. >> emily has already answered in part one of the questions we received from at-home viewers from twitter. the differences and similarities between tea party activists and occupy movement, the questioner notes both groups distrust current political systems and that puts us into social psychology distrust of the system. anyone else that has a difference about the differences or similarities? >> emily and i visited occupy together about a year ago. >> just emily? >> yes. and in terms of the foundation i i presented, the two groups are extremely different. they're both populist groups, skeptical, really critical of capitalism. they couldn't make common cause on a number of substantive issues but their styles could not be more different.

i think the clearest way to say it is the three moral foundations that are about finding groups together, group loyalty, respect for authority and a sense of purity, those are the three that the social conservatives have, which both the libertarians and liberals do not. what this means is that when a group is under attack, these are real useful foundations. you circle the wagons. it's one for all, all for one, hang in there. i think the tea party has that. social conservatives in that party have those virtues. what we saw at occupy was they are so anti-hierarchical, and they're also so opposed to sort of group loyalty and boundaries and exclusion, so if you are not going to discriminate and keep some people out and keep some people in and you are not going to have authority and structure and you try to have levels, they're very opposed to the word hierarchy and very into

horizontal structures. they don't work very well. the discussions that we saw, a lot of them devolved into arguments about procedure and people speaking out of turn. it's very hard if you don't have some sense of authority and discipline. so i think the two structures organizationally are extremely different. the tea party -- that means the occupy folks had a lot more trouble creating durable structures that could then move the movement out of reflection and discussion and out into actually affecting the world. >> they're very similar in terms of the fundamental moral narrative, i think, which is that you've got a force in america that's perverting and corrupting the country. they obviously disagree about what that is. tea partiers say it's government and occupy wall street say it's a type of unbridled capitalism. but there is a similarity in the populist narrative, a very

important difference which obviously politicians are very aware of is the tea party is distinguished by having very early made a collective strategic decision to narrow their focus. they know what they want and they know what they don't want. occupy got together and they still don't know what they want. in politics, you don't get what you want if you don't know what you want. >> one final question from at home, and i think emily had data that go to this. a person would like to know via twitter whether the tea party was more libertarian when it started and if that's so, why they might have changed. >> i didn't show this slide but emily and i took 12 polls between 2010 and 2012 and tried to see what percentage of libertarians support and each one of those polls and we averaged out a trend. what you found is that the tea party starting in 2010 has the highest percentage of libertarians, and then over time

it declined about 10% and then started to come back in 2012. in other words, a lot of libertarians as i was trying to describe got frustrated when other people got involved. you described their moral benchant for not being very cooperative with others, they don't like their parents very much, certainly don't like these other people getting involved in their thing and so some of them wept home. that's what the data seems to show. interestingly they seemed to come back in 2012, maybe this is in part because of ron paul campaign got going in force. it started from there and sort of began to get back to its roots there and actually i think this is an interesting question about longevity is where did these ron paul people go? now that ron paul has retired, some started in the tea party, they might have left the tea party. now they're back in, and to what extent does that energy continue

to get combined and maybe make a brand that's bigger or broader than the tea party? it's kind of a big mashup or what, it's an open question exactly how that goes. the one interesting side point that i didn't mention is a lot of scholars will look at the at the party and say it's conservative but one interesting implication of this trend to this low point is that if you pick 2011 as the time you are going to study the tea party, you might be studying it at a low point of libertarian participation. so you might be fooled into thinking it's a conservative leaning group, but if you look at the trend from the very beginning, all the way through 2012, you see quite clearly the ebb and flow of libertarian participation. >> on that note, i would like to thank everyone for coming. i would like to thank our authors, david and emily, for their hard work they put into this and i would like to thank

the two johns for being commentator today and i would like to invite everyone into the lobby level for a reception and if you are looking for a restroom, they're on the second floor. look for the yellow stripe. thank you very much for coming today. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> tomorrow night the final presidential debate takes place, and today our c-span cameras are having a look around lynn university in florida ahead of the debate. right now a little walk through the media center and spin room as preparations are underway for tomorrow night's debate.

>> here is a look at the auditorium and the debate stage. you see the people sitting at the desk there playing the parts as stand-ins, in making preparations to set lights, check sound, and do other technical things like that. look at the stage where the president and mitt romney will debate foreign policy tomorrow night. c-span's live coverage begins at 7:00 p.m. eastern with a preview program. that's followed by the debate itself at 9:00 eastern. and then your reaction following the debate at about 10:30 eastern. you can also go online tomorrow for our live coverage of all the presidential and vice-presidential debates. you'll find clips of each debate question and candidate's answers by topic and behind the scenes

live streams and sights and sounds after the debates. more at c-span.org/debates. >> with the focus on the presidential debates this month c-span is asking middle and high school students to send a message to the president as part of this year's c-span student cam video documentary competition. students will answer the question what is the most important issue the president should consider in 2013? for a chance to win the grand prize of $5,000. c-span's student cam video competition is open to students grade 6 through 12. for complete rules, go online to studentcam.org. >> i had gone to visit it. it's been there since 1947 which is the founding year of the country. it showed films from all over the world from the united states, from england, from

bollywood in india. to me, it symbolized the resilience of the country and openness of the country in spite of all the violence and trouble people have suffered over the last many decades in pakistan. during one of the protests against video that insulted the prophet mohammed, had a very negative image of him, during one of those protests people turned against the movie theaters and burned them. i don't really see that as a protest against the west or against the united states even though avatar was one of the movies you could have gone to see at this theater. you had islamist activists who had not liked these movie theaters for decades, way before this prophet mohammed film, and so they grabbed an opportunity to attack and they whipped up a

bunch of young people. there were teenagers involved who stole sodas from the snack bar on the way to burn the movie theater, and i argue in that piece that what they were really attacking was the nature of their own country which perhaps they did not understand. i tried to say that with the greatest respect. who am i as a foreigner to say what your country is about? but i do know from having studied the history, from having listened to pakistanis themselves, that it's an incredibly diverse place. it was born as an even more diverse place than it is today. lots of different cultures, lots of different traditions, lots of different ways to be. that movie theater symbolized pakistan, and that is what people burned when they set it on fire. >> more with "instant city" author steve inskeep tonight. >> on saturday jill biden, wife

of vice president joe biden, campaigned in minnesota. she's on a four-day midwest tour that runs through monday and includes stops in iowa and wisconsin. this 20-minute event begins with remarks by minnesota governor mark dayton. >> it is a great honor to have you here, dr. biden. we have such a great opportunity in minnesota to roll the dice. we elected the majority in the minnesota house and minnesota senate. [applause] i will shine your shoes. defeated two terrible constitutional amendments. [applause] and we can re-elect our

congressmen and women. and re-elect our tremendous senator. [applause] >> he is here today. and so -- then of course the reason we are all here today is to re-elect a great president and a great vice president. [applause] >> you didn't come to hear about them from me. you came here to hear dr. biden. i came here to hear dr. biden. i will turn it over to carol.

>> i am glad. one reason i am supporting president obama is that i have the feeling he is grounded in the real world and as i said in researching dr. biden, i found out that she has children and we have a lot in common. got married in the 1970's, had children in the 1980's. we both have been educators. i started teaching in minneapolis in 1970 and taught mostly in the inner city. in 2004 i retired. she began as a high school english teacher and in her time she taught as a psychiatric hospital for adolescents which had to be a challenging assignment. later she moved on to teach at community colleges and still works as a professor at a community college. i found a blog entry from 2008. apparently she sat in on a conference call and one of the

participants said i can't remember when i have interviewed a public figure who sounded so much like the people i work with every day, and of course that's probably because i am a teacher. some of that made me feel that she kind of knows what it's like to be in a classroom with 25 to 30 kids and have to play it by ear. jill biden believes in community colleges. both of my children have attended community colleges. my daughter majored in interior design. my son is now attending -- he went to a for profit technical school for two years. he got his degree in sound engineering but they didn't have job placement and there are no jobs in that field. the credits didn't transfer. so he is back at north hennepin

and will get his associate's degree in the spring and wants to go on to a four year college after that. i also found out she helped co-found the book buddies program. having been a primary teacher i really appreciate getting books into the hands of 4 and 5-year-old kids so when they come to school they're ready and they know what a book is. in 2003 i was diagnosed with breast cancer and after surgery and chemotherapy i am doing fine. >> good. [applause] >> she was diagnosed with breast cancer and started a health initiative in delaware. they've helped around 10,000 high school girls learn about early detection. she's a military mom who has worked to bring attention to strength and courage displayed by military families and she wrote -- oh, dear -- she wrote a book called "don't forget god

bless our troops" and it's based on the deployment experiences of our daughter natalie. if you are looking for a gift, here it is. for all of her life dr. biden has been immersed in real life. she's been a lifelong learner and always strives to be better at what she does and make the world a better place. whether it's working with struggling students or caring for children who have experienced tragedies, teaching adults who need a second chance or advocating for causes that improve life, she seems like a really special person and i am really proud to introduce her today, dr. jill briden. [applause] -- dr. jill biden. [applause] >> thank you. hello, everyone. thanks for being here today. i really appreciate -- it's

great to be here in minnesota again i want to thank carol for her comments. really, carol, i think you should come on the road with me. and thank you, governor dayton, for being here. i really appreciate it. i appreciate your friendship. but most of all really i am here because i want to thank all of our campaign and i see that you all have clip boards and you are all getting ready to go out and canvass so thank you so much for being here today and what you are doing for this campaign. over the last couple weeks, i have been traveling around the country. yesterday i was in iowa. i think tomorrow i will be in wisconsin. i see the energy and enthusiasm that's building, just like here, just like in this room today. so we are moving forward, and i think this campaign is really connecting to people because it's about people's lives.

for me it's no different because it connects to my life as well. even if joe weren't running for vice president, i would still be involved in this campaign. and as carol said, i am a full-time teacher, and as she knows as a teacher, teaching isn't just what i do, it's who i am. and i am sure there are other teachers in here -- who are the teachers? great. thank you. thank you. [applause] when we were elected and i thought of my role as second lady, i was thinking, you know, i knew that i would have to continue to teach because it's clacks you have to love what you are doing. i love going to work every day. i teach english. i was there thursday giving

midterm conferences. i will be there again on tuesday. i teach because of my students. they inspire me. as a teacher, i want to make sure we continue to invest in quality education. that is why president obama and my husband are moving things forward. we have already made so much progress in education. they have doubled the funding for pell grants. for those of you who have kids, they change the student loan process of makes it easier for students to pay back their loans. it makes smart investments in our public schools. this is where i started out in the public-school system.

we have made community colleges a cornerstone. i have been there for almost 20 years. i truly believe in the power of community colleges to change lives. i am also a military mom. our son is a major. he was deployed for a year to iraq. that was a tough year for our family. that is why i wrote the book. all the money goes to scholarships for military families. i wanted to let people know what it was like to have pay son or daughter who was deployed. my hope was that barack would end the war in iraq. he kept his promise and he did.

he also brought osama bin laden to justice and now we are going to irresponsibly end the war in afghanistan by 2014. i am sure many and you saw that. -- we are going to responsibly and the war in afghanistan by 2014. i am sure many of you saw that. i want to make sure that all of our veterans and their families get the benefit they earned the respect they deserve. it is important to me that we keep moving our country forward. look what we have done. they have expanded the gi bill so that the veterans that are coming back and go to college and get an education. they have given tax credits to businesses. did they support a military

families and organizations in real ways that affect their lives. i am involved in this election as a woman who cares about the direction of our country. i have seen what joe and barack have done in fighting for our freedoms every single day. as you know, at the present sign the lily ledbetter fair pay act, the first thing he signed. they also fought so hard for health care reform. insurance companies will no longer be able to charge women more than they charge men. they cannot charge a co fair -- cut pay for basic services like prenatal care or contraception. i see a lot did you in here.

you can stay on your parents' insurance until you're 26 years old. i am sure most of you know that they cannot discriminate against you because of a pre-existing condition. most of all, they knelt how important it is for women to make our own decisions about our on health care. , theof you women and nknow younger ones may not comment that we thought really hard for roe v wade --. may not, that we thought really hard for wrote be weighed and equal rights. we want to make sure our daughters and granddaughters did not have to go back and reified

the fights we fought decades ago. you have to educate young women and men at about the supreme court and what it is going to be like if we have a super conservatives who are appointed to the courts. think how far that will take us back. we have to live with all these consequences for decades to come. we have to keep moving forward. moving forward means that after the worst economic crisis is the great depression we have seen 31 straight month of job growth in private-sector jobs.

we have seen manufacturing and exports on the rise. and altman bell industry is backed up on its feet. -- the automobile industry is backed up on its feet. forward means that we all have to keep working so that we can create a better life for all americans. no matter where you come from or who you love, we have to keep moving forward. that is why i'm so excited to see all of you here today. the election is just 17 days away. believe me. we are counting it down, are to be? we?ren't

need to get out there and take people to the polls. you are already working for us. i can not thank you enough. you have a program that is for chefs for four more years -- f our shifts for four more years. if you can get anyone from exercise group or schools come get them to save a little bit of time. my sister said she was out canvassing in pennsylvania. if everybody pulls together, that this election is between two very different choices. i want to thank you again for being here. you are the ones that are going to take us forward. thank you so much.

[applause] and if people's ♪ ♪ highe love is lifting me er ♪ "your lvoe keeps higher"s lifting me by jackie wilson]

>> tomorrow we will view the presidential debate with the jonathan, managing editor of foreign affairs magazine. then we will hold a roundtable discussion on competitive u.s. house and senate races from around the country. our guests are jennifer duffy and david wasserman. "washington journal" live at 7:00 eastern on c-span.

>> some live events tomorrow. the u.s. institute of peace posed a discussion on religious tensions and the sometimes violent reactions to statements about religion. that is live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. tamara, a look at china's political transitions as the country's selects a new president next month. the heritage foundation will discuss what it means for u.s./china investigations. >> he was the ideal candidates for the tea party. now suddenly he is saying "who me?" he's forgetting what is all positions are. he bets that you will too. he is changing up somo much,

backtracking. we have got to name this condition is going through. i think it is called romnesia. >> i think this is a choice between two different americas. an america where government they speak rules and take more more from the people. or in america where we restore the principles that made the nation that it is, that we bring back the principles, recognizing that god gave us our right. they put life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. >> watched engage monday as president obama and it romney meet on their final debate. our debate previous starts at

7:00 p.m. eastern followed by the debate at 9:00. >> i had gone to visit this. it had been here since 1947. it showed films from all over the world from england, from bollywood in india. to me it symbolized the resilience of the country despite of all the violence and trouble that people severed over the last many decades. and during one of the protests during video insults the profit muhammed. during one of those protests, people turned against mitty feeders. i do not see that as a protest

against the west or the united states. even though avatar was a movie you could have gone to sea. y-- to see. you had islamist activists who had not let these movie theaters for decades way before this profit muhammed film that was never shown any way. the graft an opportunity -- big wrapped in opportunity to attack. there were teenagers involved. i argue that what they are really attacking is the nature of their own country, which perhaps they did not understand. who am i to say what your country is about? i do know from having listened to pakistan is themselves that it is an incredibly diverse place. it is born as an even more

diverse place than it is today. lots of different cultures. a lot of different traditions. that movie theaters symbolize pakistan. that is what people burned when they set it on fire. >> that is tonight at 8:00 on "q &a >" >> rand paul campaigned for mr. romney as presidential candidate. from a drum, new hampshire, this is about 40 minutes. -- durham, new hampshire, and this is about 40 minutes. >> that afternoon. i and the new hampshire share. i want to welcome you here today. can we get a big round of enatorse for signatu

rand paul? if i get to see a show of hands. how many people here are college students? ok. this election is about our future. this is about what kind of a country what to have read the do you want to have. we must come together -- do we want to have appeared we must come together, get involved, and make sure in november we send it romney and paul romney to the white house and barack obama packing back to chicago. we will win this election. we would get this country back on track. america can do better. we can do better. please let me introduce to you

state rep adam. >> thank you very much. just from here on the doorstep, is a new market. i am not sure how many you live in the market. it is a fantastic turn out. i hope everybody comes out november 6. i encourage you to do that. every vote matters. one of the reasons i am here today is because i know mitt romney in paul ryan understand small businesses create jobs. i am also a small business owner. we own a place called the stone church music club. we happen to not just create jobs that we directly employ, but we are one and many small

businesses that are a job it incubator. we have our tests that were supporting -- local artists that we are supporting. and hope you do the same any think about this when you go to vote. an example of this would have been working in the legislature as well. i was able to work with small breweries this year. i allow them to sell their products at their former market. -- farmers' market. it creates economic development. also working with local oyster farmers and the pollution from a pro-business perspective. *2 when you are pro small business

and economy, and these are the kind of things that can happen. please come out and vote. connected with the campaign here in the past. the alternative would be another obama administration. about it.hing to stasay it is what we are shutting down. i know he is very focused on reducing the deficit. more taxing will only cause it to go up. we need senator rand paul back in. please to come out to vote. i'm really encouraged. thank you very much.

>> how are you this afternoon tax fantastic. let me ask you a question. and the next four years how many will be looking for a job? how many of you want a job? the next four-six years, how many people may want to buy a house or a new car? it is an amazing thing. not that long ago i was in the exact same position you are in. our economy was not doing well. we ran at a real crossroads in america. we have the option of what we had versus what this guy named ronald reagan might bring us. think about what's the need if you're looking for a job in the next four years. you need someone that understands budgets, that those

have to live with and our means, understand what it means to have personal freedom and personal responsibility. i have been incredibly blessed and humbled to be associated with a sweet man you might know. rand paul.s dr. ron pau it was an amazing experience for me to have that opportunity to help cochair his election with one of your professors to i do not see in the audience gets. they open their family up to us and allow an amazing it sent to try to help the things that are important to all of us. it was a great experience.

i know you guys support him fully. what i see today in rand paul is so much of his father that as they are transitioning at the presidential level to what ever we need to do in order for you to have a job, in order to make sure that you have your own future, and is not even just yours. it is a big jopart of what makes you have a transition period money no longer calls up the tree we call mom and dad. -- what makes you have a transition period money now .ager call money no longer there falls off the tree you call mom and dad.

and the good owner doctor is a business owner. i ask you to pay particular attention today to what he is going to talk about. he has shown true conviction, which is what we need more. he has a patch to fix our problems. we have been fortunate enough to spend some time with matt romney. today we have a decision to make. we are asking all of you for your help. if you want a job i ask you to support mitt romney. he will prove to you that we can fix this. we can only fix this with your help.

let me introduce my friend, rand paul. [applause] >> thank you for coming out. i will let the light to first to firsti would like are i introduce my wife. it is our 21st birthday today. we just sent our first son off to college. but some of your parents, they were worried about you. they may still be worried about you. are you showing up for the 8:00 a.m. classes? what are you going to choose for your major? we still be living at home with their parents? their parents worry about all of these things. there is a story about how

parents can determine whether their child will turn out ok. they hid in the closet and they devised a test. but a hundred other bill out. they figured if he picks up the money he will be a business money. if he picks up the bible, you'll be a clergyman. if he picks of a burden, and maybe he will be in a fraternity. he picks up the dollar, sticks it under his arm. he picks of the bourbon and is under is other arm and marches off to his room. his mom said "it is worse than we thought. he's going to be a politician." [applause] politicians get a bad rap. we have about a 10% an approval rating. that may be about 9 points higher than it really should be.

why do we? first of all, we do not even obey our own rules. you have to read the bills. two months ago they gave us a bill. it was put on line at midnight. it was printed at 9:00 the next morning and you are voting on it at noon. that is not quite 48 hours. i said it is not 48 hours. the rules allow them to override it. 77 senators voted against 22 of us and said we deem it not so. about a year ago we had a big debate over raising the debt ceiling.

the conservatives said we will raise the debt ceiling because probably be have to. we will do it only if you seriously address the deficit and say we will pass a balanced budget amendment. we said if the passage we will raise the debt ceiling. from here on out you have to balance your budget. we did not win. we lost. some restrictions.ers diction they broke that 25 times. if you raise your hands and say you're breaking your own rules, they vote to deem it not so. you are supposed to have a budget every year. it has been a loss in 1974. when you pass appropriations bills, there is about 12 different categories of government. to have committees. the bills would go to

committees. nothing comes out of the committee. there are no appropriation bills. if you lobby me and say we want this special bid for new hampshire, i do not even get to vote on that. this is 2000 pages that no one reads. we continue funding government the same way it has been funded. we are funding a government that we are spilling over $1 trillion we do not have each year. we bring in about 2.2 children. it is over $1 trillion in debt. we have added $6 trillion to the debt in the past four years. it is unsustainable. you'll hear people say it is. but they it are adding to the debt. you may say that republicans did it to. we did. just not quite as fast. republicans doubled the debt

but others are quadrupling. why is the debt expanding so rapidly? 1 primary cause. this is not republican spot or democrat fault. it is the entitlement. medicare, medicaid, and social security are 2/3 of all spending. but bad in interest in that willnt of the bubudget become all of the budget. no money for anything else other than those three programs. that is what we are on. i have sat down in a room with president obama in a year ago. all 47 republicans and said you have to fix these. all you have to do is matt. simply raise the age. erases the age of eligibility.

they both say you can. it is not republicans or democrats fault. if anybody's ball, it is your great grandparents fault. did that too many dam kids. -- they had too many dam kids. as they get smaller, the tax base grows smaller. there are people living longer. when social security started the average life expectancy was 65. now it is 80. the maker said the five you will probably make 87. the number goes up because it is an average. people are living well into their 80's. we have to change the system or we could raise taxes. what happens if you raise taxes tha? if you want to pay medicare and

social security taxes enough to make the system solvent, you would have a 20's are payroll tax. currently it is 7.5%. what do you think will happen to the working class if everyone is paying a 20% payroll tax the president will say i am just one to tax rich people. the problem is rich people pay all the taxes. the income-tax, at the top 1% pay 40% of the income tax. the top 5% make 200,000 or more in pay 70% of the income taxes. it is ridiculous to say that they're not paying their fair

share. it is just a lie. it is untrue. here is the thing. i am not up here saying you are a rich person. you are a poor person. i want everybody to thrive. i do not care who you are. this is something that is true that cannot be denied. the private sector create jobs. jobs in the public sector are paid for by those working in the private sector. if you leave money in the private sector with whomever, ideally we ought to leave it with those who earned it. the more you leave in the private sector, the more you will leave the private sector. the present the point is the opposite. he said that tiresome more government workers. -- he said we have to hire more government workers. hiring more of me will not make

the economy recover. i am a burden. they all are. it is not mean they are bad people. i went to public schools. teachers are a cause. you do not just hire more teachers in the economy grows. you have to have education. he get so make things fundamentally wrong. he said elected people are smart but it was the roads in front of the school that got them to succeed. that is crazy. we just came from murphy's over in manchester. do you think he is successful because there is a road? road tell everybody that nine out of 10 restaurants fail. when i graduated -- to go to medical school because there is a road in front of my school?

after he said he did not build it i sent out a tweet. he might be an economic illiterate if you think the roads creating business success and not the other way around. think about it. if the rich are paying most of the income tax, who is paying for the rhodes? people who are successful. people who are successful paper taxes. if you want to punish those who are successful, you're not have the steps you want from government. we have tried this before. the punish the rich scheme has been around. people sat on their hands. monies that in banks. they would not invest. they were terrified. the recession got worse.

the depression got worse. it does not work. we are doing the same game book once again. some have said the president at least got osama bin laden. i am glad. i am glad he got osama bin laden. i have some questions. i want you to ask the president this. where the were the marines in libya. there were no marine guards guarding our ambassador. the most dangerous has to be libya or iraq. i think iraq has 17,000 people guarding the ambassador. there is a host of armed people. how big is the walt?

l? 10 feet? give a fortress guarding him. -- we have a fortress guarding him. there was a 16 per cent security team. if this is why in the did you send them home fax is specifically requested tuesday. say. ask him where in the hell were the marines. ask him what happened to the plane? they're supposed to be an airplane there. they took the plane appeared here is the real rough. they took the plane on may 4 of this year. do not happen on may 8? the state department spent

$108,000 buying a new electrical charging station to green up the vienna embassy. he have to ask yourself is the green initiative, the global warming campaign, more important security of an embassy? greening up the embassy. we probably spent $1 million fine these electric cars to make a political statement in vienna. we would not have a one marine guarding our embassy. we would now allow 16 personnel to stay in libya. we have enough money to make a show of a very politicized agenda. it is inexcusable. if he says the buck stops here, someone should be fired. [applause]

they like to ask those who are successful and the so-called 1%. that is unless you are a big donor of his. crony capitalism and corporate welfare is fine if you have been a big donor. solyndra got $534 million of your money and they went bankrupt. who owns solyndra? 20 of the richest men in the world. a billionaire got a $500 million loan from you. do you think he is really sincere that is going after the 1% when he is taking your money? do you know who approved the solyndra loans? he is married to the solyndra attorney. solyndra's attorney that

negotiated the loan is married to someone in the department of energy that helped approve a loan. does anyone remember the kennedy family? they got $1.8 billion. i am guessing there in the 1%. it is for a company called bright source. i do not do high finance. the gross revenue is $30 million. they got a $1.8 billion loan. there is a slow cycle right now of going bankrupt. we had for five other companies going bankrupt. the president thinks he is smarter than all of you. out you decide go by a the prices. he said i'm going to make a whole industry of this something that is not profitable. i'm going to do by reporting

rich people with loans. he should not let the demagoguery said. you should not let it be out there that he somehow cares about the regular folks. he is taking money from regular folks in giving it to the rich folks are chronic capitalism and welfare. do both parties do it? yes. i will oppose is no matter who is doing it. [applause] ultimately, at this election for me is about something very fundamental about our country. it is about the american dream. we have two different belief systems. we have two different visions of where the american dream goes. the american dream is not where you are now. it is where you want to go.

do you believe you are stuck where you are? do you believe there is a future for you? to do you believe if you work hard makes a difference? to believe if you go to school and make straight a's will do better than if he made straight f's? merritt is based on your work and how hard you try. do you believe in that merit based idea are do we think things are random and ought to be redistributed by someone who is smarter than we are and to list in washington and set up a committee to say some people should have one car instead of some people having three and some having none. do you really believe in the american dream that the numbers are staggering. when it the greatest things is

and mobility. 60% of those born into poverty will climb up the ladder of success. 60%. there are people who can tell you either they did it or their parents did it. they came from nothing and succeeded. do you want a hand out or a hand up? we have given away 11 million cell phones. i laughingly say kentucky used to be a bottle of whiskey and now it is cell phone. do you think people are more happy with that cell phone? they're happy for a while ar. are they getting the self-worth you get from having a job? the hand that gives you the hand out, the other hand is keeping you down. you're only good to them as

long is your dependents. the difference in dreams between president obama and governor romney is the what you to realize the self worth of having your own job. we want millions of new jobs to have jobs. we know what happens in the private sector. the president by say the same thing. that is not reflected in his policies. the other thing is that the jobs have to come from the private sector. milton friedman put it well when he said "nobody spend someone else's money as wisely or fruitfully afrugally as they spr own." it is not the government is inherently stupid, although it is debatable. is that they do not get the right signals. why this government make bad decisions that the five are

$100,000 and start a pizza parlor, every night and going to worry about paying it back. every day i will worry about making a profit. if i spend $10 trillion on something from the government, you do not worry about it. it is not your money. the government is not have the right kind of signals about your money. it is more productive if it is left with the. when he said government is a necessary evil, he meant every ounce of government you get you give up an ounce of freedom. that is not mean we do not have government. we're going to have roads. when we get to a question of to government be in the car business or should government be in the banking business, we should ask the government is any good at any business. the dream is different between president obama and governor

romney. what we have gotten at the president obama has not worked. 23 million people are out of work. gas prices have doubled. food prices are rising. more people are becoming dependent. they're putting in to this category of dependency. you lose hope. yourself were -- your seld worth concert having a job. when you go out and make your decision, i think he will think long and hard about your futures. you'll be looking for jobs and to buy a house. right now are the arm it is so large that some say the debt is costing $1 million a year. think long and hard. if you decide like me that the

best hope for our country is to look forward with governor romney, get out there and work. it will be very close. thank you very much. [applause] playing "proud to be an lee greenwood."ley

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

i came from paris. you know what you're doing here. >> happy anniversary. >> thanks a lot. >> do you want a picture? >> yes. >> how you know kathy? to is in the state of ours, up

in maine. >> to some vitamin up to maine. which is have never got around to it. -- she has invited me up to maine. we just have never gotten around to it. >> we have been given permission. we give them to the soldiers. we appreciate everything you do. >> how are you? >> by name is michael. i had the pleasure of meeting your dad. >> is this a little lone?

>> i just finished reading "liberty defined" and i almost agree did everything said. >> thank you. >> i just want to shake your hand. i keep hoping with people like you and your dad there will be helped. i keep getting discouraged.

>> i will look at it later, alright? alright. will do. hi. how are you? >> that was a fantastic speech. thank you for standing up. thank you so much, senator. >> i followed your dad for years. is an honor to meet you. can we have a picture d? >> i worked with your dad a little bit. did you get it? thank you so much. thanks for all your work.

are you in?ter ade >> 5th. >> you never hear much of mobility. >> it falls down too. it goes up and down. we should not envy that. we should be happy. >> can my wife take a picture of us? thank you very much. >> sure. i am a state rep. this is my daughter, abigail and my wife.

can we get a picture? >> are you running for reelection? >> yes. >> good luck. nice oto meet you. thank you. how are you? nice to meet you. my dad is a big fan of yours. four pictures of him.

>> can we all get in there will quick? >> we can come back in 15 minutes. >> i have to go do an interview. i will come back and 50 minutes. >> it was nice meeting you. i love it when you are on sean henneannity. >> tomorrow, a group of political analysts discussed the role of the cabinet vote in the past elections and the role of catholics in the 2012 campaign.

beginning at 12:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> there is a movie theater that i right about here it is has been there since 1947. it showed films from all over the world from the united states, england, bollywood. to me, it symbolized the resilience and openness of the country despite all the violence and trouble that people have suffered. during one of the protests against video that insulted the prophet muhammed, during one of those protests, they went to the movie theaters and burned them. i do not see that as a protest against the west. i do not see that as a protest

against the united states even though "avatar" was one of the movies you could see at the theater. he had islamist activists who had not like these miniatures for decades, way before this film. they grabbed an opportunity to attack. ofy whipped up a bugbunch young people. they stole sodas from the snack bar on the way to burn the theater. what they were really attacking was the nature of their own country which perhaps they did not understand appeared i tried to say that with the greatest respect. to my to say what your country is about? do know from studies in history that it is an incredibly diverse place. it was born as an even more to first place than it is now.

lots of different cultures. lots of different traditions. did that movie theater symbolize pakistan and that is what they burned. correct more with steve inskeep tonight at 8:00. >> he was the ideal candidates for the tea party. now he is a libertarian. he's forgetting what his own positions are. he is thinking you will too. he is changing up so much and backtracking and sidestepping. we have got to name this condition that he is going through. i think it is called romnesia. >> this collection of come down between being a choice between

two different americas. where government makes the rolls and is larger and larger where it runs more of our businesses and lives or an america where we restore the principles that made the nation what it is. that we bring back the principles of the declaration of independence, recognizing that god gave us our rights. they include to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. >> watched as president obama and mitch running mate in their final debate. -- watch as president obama and mitt romney meet in their final debate. >> we want to welcome back to "newsmakers" chris van hollen. democrat of maryland. and the top democrat on the house budget committee. thank you for being here.

and two reporters. bob cusack of "the hill." and david wessel, economics editor with the "wall street journal." david, go ahead. >> there's been a lot of talk about the fiscal cliff. the automatic spending cuts that will hit at the end of the year. the tax increases that will hit at the same time, unless congress finds an alternative way to reduce the deficit.